You could be right, and my-bad for passing on rumor . unless, that is, this is one of the papers which caused a falling-out, which continues to the present. Was Piantelli present?
For instance, it appears the Italians were in the habit of listing co-authors alphabetically, to wit: S. FOCARDI(1), V. GABBANI(2), V. MONTALBANO(2), F. PIANTELLI(2) and S. VERONESI(2) Whereas, one of the five - might have - at some later date - considered himself to have been the lead investigator, but realizing that he is not getting the credit he deserves. Who knows? BTW a close look at this paper and the ones cited prior to it shows that energetic nickel-hydride has been around a long time - and that the major advance which pushed it over the top in recent years - is probably the emergence of "nano" . Randell Mills, in contrast - chose a commonly available form of nickel early on - Raney nickel - which since the 1920s was made in such a way (leaching out aluminum from an alloy) that it was already "nano" in an inverse sense . and therefore Mills had a form of "nanopowder" a decade ahead of the others. . what a tangled web this may turn out to be . From: Jed Rothwell 4) As I understand the personal situation, Piantelli is a bitter enemy of Focardi, going back to the early nineties * They co-authored a paper in 1994, so I doubt they were bitter enemies then. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf - Jed
